Dharmendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38680 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2026 Thana- BATHNAHA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Dharmendra Prasad Son of Madan Sah Resident of Village- Kishanpur, Ward No. 11, P.S.- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-06-2026 Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 05.04.2026, in connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 175 of 2026, FIR dated 05.04.2026 registered for the offence under Sections 8(c),20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.

3. Recovery is of 39.937 kg of Ganja.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that although the recovery has been made from the house of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38680 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026 2/3 petitioner but there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S Act. The petitioner is in custody since 05.04.2026.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, on the basis of the material available on the record, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that altogether 39.837 kg of Ganja has been recovered from the house of the petitioner and he was apprehended from the place of occurrence and it appears from the FIR that huge quantity of Ganja was recovered so there is embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner.

6. The grant of bail in NDPS cases where the recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic is alleged is circumscribed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 37 which says that before grant of bail, the Court must have reason to believe that the petitioner has not committed the offence and in the event of release he would not commit similar offence.

7. The issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and Ors Vs. Rajesh & Ors, reported in 2020(12) SCC 122 as well as in the case of Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal reported in AIR 2022 SC 3444 and recently decided the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38680 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026 3/3 judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346.

8. The recovery of huge quantity of Ganja from the house of the petitioner would not justify that the petitioner had no knowledge of the narcotic nor there is any material to substantiate that the petitioner would not commit such offence in the event of release.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts and nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 175 of 2026, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, NDPS Act, Sitamarhi.

10. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T